SOLEDAD: SINCE THE 2016 ELECTION, FACEBOOK HAS BEEN UNDER FIRE. IT’S BEEN ONE SCANDAL AFTER ANOTHER. ELECTION INTERFERENCE, FAILURE TO MONITOR HATE SPEECH, AND QUESTIONABLE ADVERTISING PRACTICES. NOW, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IS EXPECTED TO FINE FACEBOOK UP TO $5 BILLION FOR PRIVACY VIOLATIONS. THAT IS BILLION WITH A B. DESPITE ALL THE DRAMA, FACEBOOK BOTTOM LINE HASN’T TAKEN A SERIOUS HIT. THIS WEEK THE COMPANY ANNOUNCED IT BEAT REVENUE EXPECTATIONS, EARNING MORE THAN $15 BILLION DURING THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THE YEAR. AND EVEN WITH PRIVACY ISSUES, THE NUMBER OF MONTHLY USERS ACROSS ALL OF FACEBOOK APPS INCLUDING INSTAGRAM, MESSENGER, AND WHATSAPP HAVE GROWN TO 2.3 BILLION. SO THAT LEAVES MANY PEOPLE WONDERING IF FACEBOOK IS JUST UNSTOPPABLE. SARA FISCHER IS A MEDIA REPORTER AT AXIOS. IT’S SO NICE TO HAVE YOU. SARA: THANKS FOR HAVING ME. SOLEDAD: SO LET’S START WITH THAT $5 BILLION. IT IS WHAT SORT OF PROJECTED IT SOUNDS HUGE. IS IT ACTUALLY HUGE? SARA: IT’S NOT THAT HUGE. THERE ARE A LOT OF CRITICS OF THAT FINE ESTIMATE WHO ARE SAYING, LOOK, FACEBOOK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH DEMOCRACY RIGHT NOW. AND SO THIS FINE, SOMETHING THAT QUITE FRANKLY THEY CAN WRITE OFF AND CONTINUE TO MAKE BILLIONS IN PROFIT, IS NOT GOING TO BE BIG ENOUGH TO KIND OF FORCE THEM TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS. SOLEDAD: THERE HAVE BEEN SOME FORCED CHANGES. SOME ARE SORT OF TANGIBLE CHANGES AND SOME ARE -- I’D CALL THEM MORE LIKE PHILOSOPHICAL CHANGES. CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH BOTH OF THOSE? SARA: ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL SIDE, MARK ZUCKERBERG, THE CEO OF FACEBOOK HAS SAID LOOK WE WANT TO PIVOT AND BE A PRIVACY CENTRIC PLATFORM, MEANING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS IN THE FUTURE ARE ENCRYPTED. THE WAY THAT THEIR MESSAGING PLATFORMS MESSENGER AND WHATSAPP ARE, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER. AS FAR AS THE TANGIBLE CHANGES, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY’VE DONE IS THEY’VE MADE IT CLEAR OF WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE FROM PRIVACY PERSPECTIVE ON FACEBOOK. SOLEDAD: BECAUSE OF LOTS OF HISTORIC FAILURES. SARA: MANY HISTORIC FAILURES. FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE, DURING THE CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICS SCANDAL, DIDN’T REALIZE THAT WHEN THEY WERE PLAYING A GAME ON THAT PLATFORM THEIR DATA WAS BEING SHARED WITH A THIRD PARTY DEVELOPER WHO THEN HAD THE ABILITY TO GO AND SELL IT TO ANOTHER PARTY. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS BEING USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, WHICH OF COURSE, YOU COULD SEE WHY USERS FEEL AS THOUGH THEIR TRUST WAS BEING BETRAYED BY FACEBOOK. SOLEDAD: MARK ZUCKERBERG IS ALWAYS SORT OF THIS INTERESTING CHARACTER I WOULD SAY. HE’S ALWAYS BEEN SORT OF PORTRAYED AS NAIVE AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, STUMBLED INTO THIS BRILLIANT IDEA. AND I THINK THAT HAS CHANGED OVER TIME. HE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE AND HE’S ALSO NOT SO NAIVE I WOULD SAY. SARA: THAT’S RIGHT. SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOR SO LONG WE THOUGHT ABOUT HIM AS THIS IDEALISTIC TECH FOUNDER, BUT WHAT WE’VE SEEN THROUGH LEAKED EMAILS AND REPORTS IS THAT HE’S ACTUALLY A LOT MORE KNUCKLE-BARD. HE’S SOMEBODY WHO IS WILLING TO BE RUTHLESS WHEN IT COMES TO PROTECTING HIS BUSINESS. AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE A RECENT DOCUMENT DUMP THAT WAS OBTAINED BY NBC NEWS, FOUND THAT MARK ZUCKERBERG WAS WILLING TO RESTRICT COMPETITORS FROM USER DATA IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE THEM. WELL, OF COURSE, PEOPLE CRIED THAT THIS IS A COMPETITIVE FOUL. BUT FOR MARK ZUCKERBERG, WHO’S TRYING TO PROTECT HIS MOST VALUED ASSET, WHICH IS USER DATA, HE WASN’T AFRAID OF GOING THERE. SOLEDAD: THERE’S ALWAYS A BIT OF DEBATE, LIKE, IS FACEBOOK -- YOU COULD EVEN MAKE IT A SOCIAL MEDIA DEBATE. IS FACEBOOK NET GOOD OR NET EVIL? AND NET GOOD, SOMEONE MIGHT SAY, LISTEN, THE ARAB SPRING WAS ELEVATED BECAUSE OF CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE, AND THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK AND SOCIAL MEDIA. AND THEN YOU COULD TURN AROUND AND SAY, AND MASSACRES ARE STREAMED LIVE BECAUSE OF FACEBOOK. THOSE ARE SORT OF BOTH SIDES OF A COIN. IS FACEBOOK IN YOUR OPINION NET GOOD OR NET BAD? SARA: WHEN FACEBOOK CAME OUT A YEAR AGO AND THEY SAID, LOOK, WE DON’T KNOW IF WE ARE A A NET GOOD OR NET BAD FOR DEMOCRACY. THAT WAS A BIG STEP FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO CONCEDE THAT. WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS A TECHNOLOGY -- SOLEDAD: ISN’T EVEN SAYING THAT KIND OF TERRIBLE OR NOT. I’M NOT SURE OF. GOOD FOR DEMOCRACY, LIKE, IF I SAID THAT I’M NOT SURE YOU’D WANT TO BE MY FRIEND, YOU’D BE, LIKE, YOU GO FIGURE IT OUT. AND THEN I’LL DECIDE IF I’M GOING TO HANG OUT WITH YOU. SARA: SO WHAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS, OK, IF WE DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS NET GOOD OR NET BAD FOR DEMOCRACY, HOW CAN WE AT LEAST START TO THINK ABOUT REGULATING IT SO WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE IT IS BETTER FOR DEMOCRACY THAN IT IS NOW? AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT’S SOMETHING THE WHOLE WORLD IS RECKONING WITH TODAY. SO